1st Int’l Conf.
on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |
Performance Evaluation of different Space-Time-
Codes for MIMO System
Umesh Sharma
Electronics and Communication Engg. Deptt.
NIT Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra, India.
umesh356.sharma@gmail.com.
Abstract—This paper investigates the performance of various
multiple input multiple output (MIMO) space-time coded
systems. These systems are simulated under Rayleigh fading
environment and their performance in terms of bit error rate
(BER), diversity gain, data-rate, type of transmitted signal
constellations and detection complexity is evaluated.
Keywords- Space-time coding; diversity; spatial multiplexing;
fading; MIMO systems; detection complexity.
I. INTRODUCTION
The key challenge faced by future wireless
communication systems is to provide high-data-rate wireless
access at high quality of service (QoS) [1]. Combined with
the facts that spectrum is a scarce resource and propagation
conditions are hostile due to fading (caused by destructive
addition of multipath components) and interference from
other users, this requirement calls for means to radically
increase spectral efficiency and to improve link reliability.
Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless
communication technology, in which multiple antennas are
used at the transmitter and at the receiver seems to meet
these demands by offering increased spectral efficiency
through spatial multiplexing (SM) gain, and improved link
reliability due to antenna diversity gain [2]. MIMO
techniques, which consist of using multiple antennas at both
transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx), can provide spatial
diversity, multiplexing gain, interference suppression, and
make various tradeoffs between them [3].
These techniques have been incorporated in all of the
recently developed wireless communications system
specifications, including the IEEE 802.11n-2009 standard [4]
for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks and the IEEE
802.16e-2005 standard [5] for Mobile Broadband Wireless
Access Systems. Mobile worldwide interoperability for
microwave access (WiMAX) systems are based on the
scalable orthogonal frequency-division multiple access
(OFDMA) mode of IEEE 802.16e-2005 specifications and
use a subset of the different options included in them.
A simple form of a STC MIMO system is presented in
[6]. This code provides perfect second-order diversity when
used with a single Rx antenna and fourth-order diversity
when used with two antennas at the receiver. However, it is
only half rate code. The full rate code with spatial
multiplexing (SM), which uses two antennas at the
978-1-4577-0697-4/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 20,2023 at 05:55:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Arvind Kumar
Electronics and Communication Engg. Deptt.
NIT Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra, India.
arvind_sharma@nitkkr.ac.in.
transmitter and two antennas at the receiver, provides
second-order diversity. For future evolutions of the
worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX)
standard as well as for future releases of third-generation
partnership project (3GPP) long-term evolution (LTE), it is
highly desirable to include a new code combining the
respective advantages of the Alamouti code and the SM code
while avoiding their drawbacks. Such a code actually exists
in the IEEE 802.16e-2005 specifications, where it is referred
to as matrix C. The matrix C is a variant of the golden code
[7], which is known to be one of the best STCs of size 2x2.
However, this code has a tremendous decoding complexity
that grows with the fourth power of the signal constellation
size, and this makes it impractical for low-cost wireless
systems.
By adding the optimum detection complexity to the STC
design criteria, a full-rate full-diversity (FR-FD) 2x2 STC
whose ML detection complexity grows only quadratically
with the size of the signal constellation was recently
developed in [8]. Compared with matrix C (and with the
golden code), this STC reduces the optimum ML decoder
complexity by two orders of magnitude with the 16-state
quadrature amplitude modulation (16-QAM) signal
constellation and by four orders of magnitude with the 64-
QAM signal constellations. In both of these STC designs [7-
8], the signal points are not regularly spaced in this new
constellation.
A pragmatic STC design, whose elements are a linear
combination of two transmitted symbols in the STC, is
presented in [3]. The STC constrains the elements of the
code matrix to take their values from a QAM constellation
with regularly spaced points. This property has several
advantages in practical system design such as the number of
bits needed in the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter at the
transmitter and in the analog-to-digital (A/D) converter in the
receiver is smaller, eases synchronization, channel
equalization, and other signal processing functions at the
receiver.
In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of these
STC MIMO systems under Rayleigh flat fading channel and
their performance is evaluated using different benchmarks.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, a MIMO system model is described. Section III discusses
the various STC design schemes. Section IV describes the
 1st Int’l Conf. on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |
combining schemes and ML detection at the receiver. The
simulation and results are presented in Section V. Finally,
the Section VI concludes the paper.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
The base band system model considered in the analysis is
presented in Figure 1. The transmitter consist a digital data
source, digital modulator, serial-to-parallel converter, space-
time encoder and the transmitter antenna array. The space-
time encoded data are transmitted to the medium through
transmitter antenna array in the form of electromagnetic
radio waves. The channel used in the system is flat fading
channel.
Data
Digital STC
Source Mod. Encoder
S/P
Channel
Data Digital STC
°
Sink Demod. P/S Decoder
° and same type as the conventional digital modulation prior to
Figure 1. MIMO System Model.
The receiver receives the data through the noisy channel
in the form of electromagnetic radio waves. Space-time
decoder performs the reverse operation of the space-time
encoder at the transmitter side. Maximum-Likelihood (ML)
detector is used to decode the space-time encoded symbols.
Demodulator demodulates the signal waveforms received
through space-time decoder. It also has a signal de-mapper
that converts a data-symbol into k-bits binary sequence.
III. STC DESIGN SCHEMES
In MIMO systems, the signals transmitted from different
antennas are described by a space–time code (STC) matrix,
whose properties determine the system performance. The
various STC design schemes are presented in this section.
A. Alamouti STC
Siavash M. Alamouti presented a simple STC scheme in
[6]. In this scheme, two signals are simultaneously
transmitted from the two antennas at a given symbol period.
The symbols s0 and s1 are simultaneously transmitted from
the transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2, respectively during the
first symbol interval t and the symbols -s1* and s0* are
simultaneously transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1
and Tx2, respectively during the next symbol interval t+T,
for a group of two modulated data symbols (s0, s1), where T
is the symbol period.
With two transmit antennas, the code provides perfect
second order diversity with a single receiver antenna and
fourth order diversity when used with two antennas at the
receiver. Hence, it is full-diversity code. As the matrix
elements are only single signal element, so the new signal
constellation is same as that of original signal constellation
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 20,2023 at 05:55:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of the modulation used prior to the space-time encoder.
Hence the transmitted signal constellation is of same size as
that of original signal constellation and of regular type like
conventional digital modulation scheme. The detection
complexity of the STC is not much high and of the order of
M2, where M is the modulation order. However it is only
half-rate code since the data rate obtained through this STC
is only the half of maximum possible data-rate.
B. Spatial Multiplexing STC
To mitigate the main drawback of half-rate of Alamouti
space-time code, the space-time code namely Spatial
Multiplexing (SM) STC using 2 transmit and 2 receive
antennas, presented in [1]. The symbols s0 and s1 are
simultaneously transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1
and Tx2, respectively during the first symbol interval t and
°
the symbols s2 and s3 are simultaneously transmitted from
° the transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2, respectively during the
next symbol interval t+T, for a group of four modulated data
symbols (s0, s1, s2, s3), where T is the symbol period.
Spatial multiplexing STC achieved the maximum
possible date rate i.e. the code is full rate unlike Alamouti
STC. Its detection complexity is also not much and of the
order of M2, where M is the modulation order. Signal
constellation obtained after the SM STC is also of same size
space time encoder like Alamouti STC. But the diversity
gain obtained through this STC is only the half of maximum
possible diversity gain since it transmit any symbol block of
the STC by using only two branches out of the maximum
possible four channel branches i.e. only through a single
transmitter. Therefore it does not take any benefit of transmit
diversity. Hence SM STC is only half diversity code.
C. Golden STC
Golden STC design whose elements are a linear
combination of two transmitted symbols was presented in
[7]. The symbol blocks (1/√(1+r2))*(s0+jrs3) and
(1/√(1+r2))*(s1-rs2) are simultaneously transmitted from the
transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2, respectively during the first
symbol interval t and the symbols (1/√(1+r2))*(rs1+s2) and
(1/√(1+r2))*(jrs0+s3) are simultaneously transmitted from
the transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2, respectively during the
next symbol interval t+T, for a group of four modulated data
symbols (s0, s1, s2, s3), where T is the symbol period, r is the
Golden number, r = (-1+√5)/2 and j is given as j = √(-1).
Golden STC is full-rate, full-diversity (FRFD) STC. But
the code has a tremendous decoding complexity that grows
with the fourth power of the signal constellation size, and
this makes it impractical for low-cost wireless systems [3].
One solution is to use sphere decoding, but this technique
has two awkward problems, one being the initial radius of
the search procedure and the other being the determination of
the order in which the constellation points are tested. The
signal constellation diagram obtained through Golden STC is
of irregular type i.e. signal points are not distributed in a
regular pattern unlike conventional digital modulation
techniques, which is not desired, because it requires large
number of bits for the D/A and A/D converters at the
transmitter and receiver respectively, and synchronization,
channel equalization and other signal processing functions at
the receiver becomes typical.
 1st Int’l Conf. on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |
D. Optimum Detection STC
To avoid the drawback of higher detection complexity of
Golden STC, Optimum detection STC was presented in [8].
The symbols as0 + bs2 and as1 + bs3 are simultaneously
transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2,
respectively during the first symbol interval t and the
symbols -cs1*-ds2* and cs0*+ ds2* are simultaneously
transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1 and Tx2,
respectively during the next symbol interval t+T, for a group
of four modulated data symbols (s0, s1, s2, s3), where T is the
symbol period; a, b, c, and d are complex-valued design
parameters; a=c and b=-jd; * denotes the complex conjugate
operation and j=√(-1).
The Optimum detection code has the optimum detection
complexity that grows only quadratically with the size of the
signal constellation. Compared with matrix C (and with the
golden code), this STC reduces the optimum ML decoder
complexity by two orders of magnitude with the 16-state
quadrature amplitude modulation (16-QAM) signal
constellation and by four orders of magnitude with the 64-
QAM signal constellation. Optimum detection STC is also
FRFD code. Signal constellation obtained through this STC
is also of irregular type like Golden code, which is not
desired.
E. Pragmatic STC
The Pragmatic STC design whose elements are also a
linear combination of two transmitted symbols was presented
in [3]. The symbols (1/√5)*(2s0+js3) and (1/√5)*(2s1-s2) are
simultaneously transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1
and Tx2, respectively during the first symbol interval t and
the symbols (1/√5)*(s1+2s2) and (1/√5)*(js0+2s3) are
simultaneously transmitted from the transmit antenna Tx1
and Tx2, respectively during the next symbol interval t+T,
for a group of four modulated data symbols (s0, s1, s2, s3).
where T is the symbol period.
The STC constrains the elements of the code matrix to
take their values from a QAM constellation with regularly
spaced points [3]. This property has several advantages in
practical system design. such as the number of bits needed in
the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter at the transmitter and in
the analog-to-digital (A/D) converter in the receiver is
smaller, eases synchronization, channel equalization, and
other signal processing functions at the receiver. The
Pragmatic STC is also FRFD code. However the code has
also tremendous decoding complexity that grows with the
fourth power of the signal constellation size.
IV. COMBINING SCHEMES AND ML DETECTION
On the first Rx antenna, two signals received at the first
and second symbol intervals are
r1=h11st1+h12st2+n1, (1)
r2=h11st3+h12st4+n2,
(2)
Similarly, we have on the second Rx antenna:
r3=h21st1+h22st2+n3, (3)
r4=h21st3+h22st4+n4, (4)
where sti, for i=1,2, are symbol blocks transmitted from
first and second antenna respectively at the first symbol
interval and sti, for i=3,4, are symbol blocks transmitted from
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 20,2023 at 05:55:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
first and second antenna respectively at the second symbol
interval; hij is the channel between ith receiver and jth
transmitter and ni, for i=1,2,3,4, are the additive noise terms.
The ML detector makes an exhaustive search over all
possible values of the transmitted symbols and decides in
favor of the quadruplet (s0, s1, s2, s3) that minimizes the
Euclidean distance:
D(s0, s1, s2, s3)=||Y - HX||2 (5)
where Y, H and X are the received symbols, channels and
transmitted symbols quadruplet.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
The performance of various space-time codes (STCs) for
2 transmit and 2 receive antennas, MIMO system was
evaluated by means of computer simulations via the
MATLAB software. It is assumed that the amplitudes of
fading from each transmit antenna to each receive antenna
are mutually uncorrelated Rayleigh distributed and that the
average signal powers at each receive antenna from each
transmit antenna are the same i.e. the Rayleigh flat fading
environment [9]. There is also an assumption that the
receiver has perfect knowledge of the channel state
information (CSI). These STCs are evaluated using a few
benchmarks such as diversity gain, spatial multiplexing gain,
detection complexity, signal constellation type and BER.
All above mentioned STCs are full diversity code except
the SM code. SM code provides only half diversity; hence it
is half diversity code. All STCs are full rate code except the
Alamouti code. Alamouti code avails only half data-rate;
hence it is half rate code. Therefore Golden code, Optimum
detection code and Pragmatic code are full-rate, full-diversity
(FRFD) code. Detection complexity of the ML detector at
the receiver for the Alamouti code, SM code and Optimum
detection code is only M2 and the same for the Golden code
and pragmatic code is M4, where M is the modulation order.
Signal constellation for the Alamouti code and SM code is
same as that of the modulation used prior to the space-time
encoder at the transmitter. And the signal constellation for
the Golden code, Optimum detection code and pragmatic
code is of higher order size than that of the modulation used,
where Alamouti code and SM code is of same size as that of
the modulation used. Signal constellation for Alamouti code,
SM code and the pragmatic code is regularly spaced, where
the same for the Golden code and Optimum code is not
regularly spaced. The signal constellation for these codes
with 4-QAM modulation is shown in Figure 2. The diversity
gain, the Spatial multiplexing gain, detection complexity of
receiver, and type and size of signal constellation for all
these STCs for 2x2 MIMO systems is shown in tabular form
in TABLE 1.
The BER performance of all these codes was evaluated
for the 2 transmit and 2 receive antennas, MIMO system.
The BER versus Eb/No plot for the all five STCs for 2x2
MIMO system using 4-QAM modulation is shown in Figure
3. Based on this performance, we determined that the
Alamouti code shows the best and the SM code shows the
worst BER performance out of all these STCs. The SM STC
performs 3 dB poorer than Alamouti STC, because Alamouti
STC is perfect full diversity code while SM STC is only half
diversity code. The result indicate that, over the BER range
 1st Int’l Conf. on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |

of interest, the respective performances of the two Golden

STC and Pragmatic STC schemes are essentially identical.
We can observe that at BER rates below 10-3, the slope of the
pragmatic code performance curve is smaller than that of
matrix C and Optimum detection code, which indicates that
this design does not achieve full diversity.

TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS STC USING FEW BENCHMARKS.

Bench Marks
Type of Size of (d)
STC Diversity Detection signal signal
SM Gain
Gain Complexity constella constella Figure 2. Signal constellation for 4-QAM modulation for STCs, (a)
-tion -tion Alamouti and/or SM STC, (b) Golden STC, (c) Optimum detection STC and
Alamouti 4 2 M2 Regular M (d) Pragmatic STC.

SM 2 4 M2 Regular M

Golden 4 4 M4 Irregular M2
Optimum M2 M2
4 4 Irregular
Detection
Pragmatic 4 4 M4 Regular M2

Figure 3. BER versus Eb/N0 plot of various STCs for 2x2 MIMO
system using 4-QAM modulation.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the system performance, we evaluated that
Alamouti code performs best in terms of diversity gain and
(a) therefore in BER performance, while SM code performs best
in terms of spatial multiplexing gain and therefore in data-
rate. Golden code, Optimum detection code, and Pragmatic
code achieves FR-FD. Optimum detection code performs the
best in terms of detection complexity of the ML detector at
the receiver. Pragmatic code makes the signal constellation
regularly spaced. This property has several advantages in
practical system design such as the number of bits needed in
the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter at the transmitter and
in the analog-to-digital (A/D) converter in the receiver is
smaller, eases synchronization, channel equalization, and
other signal processing functions at the receiver. However
the pragmatic code incurred the BER performance loss at the
(b) cost of the above advantages. Hence Golden code and
optimum detection code need to further work on its
transmitted signal constellation to make it uniformly
distributed. Golden code and Pragmatic code need to
optimize its detection complexity of ML decoder.
Optimization of the pragmatic STC design in terms of BER
performance remains a topic for further study.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, ‘Fundamentals of Wireless
Communications’ Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
[2] Helmut Bolcseki, ETH Zurich, “MIMO-OFDM Wireless Systems:
Basics, Perspectives and Challenges,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Conf.,
(c) Advances in Smart Antennas, pp. 31-37, Aug. 2006.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 20,2023 at 05:55:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1st Int’l Conf. on Recent Advances in Information Technology | RAIT-2012 |

[3] Amr Ismail, Hikmet Sari, and Jocelyn Fiorina, “A pragmatic

approach space-time code design,” IEEE vehicular technology
magazine, pp. 91-96, Mar. 2010.
[4] IEEE Standard for Information Technology, Telecommunications and
Information Exchange Between Systems—Local and Metropolitan
Area Networks—Specific Requirements—Part 11: Wireless LAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) & Physical Layer Specifications
Enhancements for Higher Throughput, IEEE 802.11n-2009, Oct.
2009.
[5] IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks – Part 16:
Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
Systems – Amendment 2: Physical Layer and Medium Access
Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in
Licensed Bands, IEEE 802.16- 2005, Feb. 2006.
[6] S. M. Alamouti, “A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless
communications”, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp.
1451–1458, Oct. 1998.
[7] J. C. Belfiore, G. Rekaya, and E. Viterbo, “The golden code: A 2x2
full-rate space-time code with non-vanishing determinants,” IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1432–1436, Apr. 2005.
[8] S. Sezginer and H. Sari, “Full-rate full-diversity 2x2 space-time codes
of reduced decoder complexity,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no.
12, pp. 973–975, Dec. 2007.
[9] J. G. Proakis, ‘Digital Communications’ New York: McGraw-Hill,
1989.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 20,2023 at 05:55:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.